STOCK Act passes in the Senate

CBS/AP

Updated 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time

The STOCK Act - legislation to bar members of Congress from trading stocks based on nonpublic information they have obtained in the course of their congressional work - passed the Senate Thursday in a 96 to 3 vote.

The legislation still needs to pass the House. President Obama, who said in a statement he was "pleased" by the Senate vote, has vowed to quickly sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Members of Congress are already subject to insider trading laws. But it is currently within the law for a lawmaker to buy a company's stock after learning, for example, that an upcoming bill will grant that company a large government contract.

The ultimate fate of the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, which comes in the wake of a "60 Minutes" story on potential congressional insider trading, remains unclear - though its prospects are relatively good. Passage in the Senate was complicated by a flurry of amendments added to the legislation, including a proposal that senators be prevented from owning individual stocks unless they are in a blind trust, and another that senators who become lobbyists lose their pensions. Some lawmakers expressed skittishness at the efforts to broaden the scope of the legislation.

Senate Democrats and Republicans began voting on 20 amendments, one by one, early Thursday afternoon, after an agreement was worked out between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell following contentious negotiations. The amendment barring lawmakers from directly holding individual stocks failed Thursday 26 - 73; the amendment mandating that lawmakers lose their pensions for lobbying was not among those brought to a vote.

One criticism of the original legislation - raised by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor - was that the original bill did not also focus on the executive branch. That issue seems to have been addressed: An amendment to extend the new rules to cover the executive branch passed on Thursday 58-41.

In a statement following the vote, Cantor said he was "pleased" with the Senate action -- but added that that the version of the bill passed Thursday still needed to be reviewed. The Virgina Republican said the House would take up the legislation next week; if the House passes an amended version of the bill, it will have to go back to the Senate for another vote.

Watch the "60 Minutes" report below:

[MrDanjer]

How about this for a law:

All laws that apply to citizens of the Unites States of America also apply to the Congress and the President of the United States of America."

No committees necessary just vote yes or resign immediately.

[nancy_naive]

The Times reported on September 18 (2001) that investigations were under way into the unusually large numbers of shares in insurance companies and airlines sold off before the attack, in the UK, Italy, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, France and the US.[11][12] News accounts in the weeks that followed reported a notable pattern of trading in the options of United and American Airlines[13] as well as Morgan Stanley and other market activity.[14] An article published in The Journal of Business in 2006 provides statistical evidence of unusual put option market activity days before 9/11:

Examination of the option trading leading up to September 11 reveals that there was an unusually high level of put buying. This finding is consistent with informed investors having traded options before the attacks.[15]

In a statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003, Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, said:

Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11 attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account.[16]

[reality_sanity]

by fredrickh February 3, 2012 9:20 AM EST
There is no mention of who sponsored this bill in the senate.

Actually it was Joseph Lieberman - S.2038. Senators Brown (S.1871) and Gillibrand (S.1903) had like named bills that NEVER were voted on in the full Senate.

[fredrickh]

There is no mention of who sponsored this bill in the senate. I believe it was Senator Scott Brown(R-Ma.)Why not give him credit - oh yeah the media would not want to hurt Elizabeth (Granny) Warren's (Ultra Liberal - Harvard) chances of taking back the peoples (er ah Ted Kennedy's) seat. If this bill passes perhaps the SEC will not have to look the other way the next time Nancy Pelosi makes a lucrative trade.

[Paul_I]

Do you see a conspiracy behind everything in the news? Maybe the weather forecasters are out to punish Denver today for being more liberal than the rest of the state?

[reality_sanity]

Actually the bill that passed was S.2038 sponsored by Joseph I Lieberman with NO cosponsors. Senators Brown (S.1871) and Gillibrand (S.1903) had similar named proposals but neither were voted upon by the entire Senate according to thomas.loc.gov. Three Senators voted against the Lieberman bill -- Bingaman (D-NM), Burr (R-NC), Coburn (R-OK). Kirk (R-IL recovering from stroke) did not vote on the bill.

[no1blonde]

I call it 'Volitics'. Volley the bill back and forth so the law with the least impact wins and the side who is forced to accept it gets the blame.

[Well_You_Aint_Me]

"[A]mendments added to the legislation, including...senators who become lobbyists lose their pensions."



Finally a worthwhile amendment. Hopefully this passed and was added to the bill.

[reality_sanity]

While I agree with your position on this issue your reading skills appear to be lacking -- "the amendment mandating that lawmakers lose their pensions for lobbying was not among those brought to a vote."

[nancy_naive]

Hey, was there ever a doubt as to who shorted airlines and insurance companies on 9/10/2001? Congressmen and CIA/NSA employees.

[wizardlady]

If this statement is true, then to me it would represent prima facia evidence of a 'planned event'. Could this be the real reason WHY no legitimate investigation was done, but rather a hand-picked commission to cover all axxes? Is the American public so dumb they cannot see, or just do not wish to see the truth?

[nancy_naive]

Something like $25 million in unclaimed short sales. Hey, you're a low paid CIA analyst, the wires are abuzz with rumors of a big highjack planned in early September,... what would you do?

[baileyccc]

I applause President Obama but insider information is a "way of life" on Wall Street and it will be no different in a corrupt congress.

[PourpaixPourpaix]

Sometimes, we gotta let good news just be good news. Cooperative effort that seems in the nation's best interest. Be suspicious if you like, I'd be more than happy to listen AFTER someone takes the bill apart line by line. Until then, be happy that something good seems to have happened.

I do hope the executive branch limitations are strict enough. I remember from the old defense industry days, all the generals and admirals getting rich off investments they made just before announcing a big contract. Entrusting our nation's defense to that pack of soul suckers is our biggest mistake.

[nolapearl]

I can't believe any of them voted against it!